Lawmakers From States With Deteriorating Infrastructure Oppose Obama’s Infrastructure Investment

Several Republican lawmakers are trying to claim that Obama’s $50 billion plan to invest in infrastructure is too expensive, at the same time that they’re pushing for an $830 billion tax cut for the richest two percent of Americans. If these lawmakers succeed in blocking the investment, they’ll definitively prove their deficit peacockery, while also perpetuating an ongoing neglect of the country’s infrastructure, which is rapidly deteriorating.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, it would take a $2.2 trillion investment to get America’s infrastructure into good condition, including $930 billion for roads and bridges and another $160 billion for schools. Here is the situation in some of the states where lawmakers have been resistant to Obama’s plan:

KENTUCKY: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) opposes the funding, even though one-third of his state’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and the state has 178 high hazard dams (which is a dam where failure “would cause a loss of life and significant property damage”).

OHIO: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) opposes the funding, even though his state has 375 high hazard dams and is the country’s fifth largest hazardous waste producer. 25 percent of Ohio’s roads are in poor condition.

FLORIDA: Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposes the funding, even though 18 percent of his state’s bridges are structurally deficient, the state has 72 high hazard dams, and needs a $15 billion investment in drinking water infrastructure.

COLORADO: Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO) opposes the funding, even though one-third of his state’s roads are in poor condition, 18 percent of its bridges are deficient, and it has 352 high hazard dams.

VIRGINA: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) opposes the funding, while almost one-quarter of Virginia’s roads and bridges are in poor condition and there are 143 high hazard dams.

Allowing infrastructure to deteriorate is dangerous, and cleaning up the mess after an infrastructure failure triggers a disaster is costlier than simply dealing with problems before they arise. But at the moment, it’s easier to score political points off of anything that has to do with additional government spending.